• American Lulu – review

    This review also appears on the Opera Britannia website

    Rating: ★★☆☆☆

    Taking Alban Berg’s Lulu as a starting point, Scottish Opera at the Edinburgh International Festival present American Lulu – a new re-envisioned interpretation of this piece by Austrian composer Olga Neuwirth, who re-orchestrates Berg’s original, attempts to set it within the context of the Civil Rights movement in America and provides a conclusion to compensate for the absence of anything satisfactory at the original composer’s death. Sadly, the end result is a tedious and rather pointless production whose only saving grace is some stunning singing. The cast work hard and cannot be blamed for a production that offers an object lesson in futility.

    There’s no doubt that a great deal of effort and work has gone into this. The piece was co-commissioned by The Opera Group and the Komische Oper Berlin and co-produced by The Opera Group, Scottish Opera, Bregenzer Festpiele and the Young Vic. Maybe things turned out so badly because it was effectively produced by a committee. However, one wonders why there was not someone with enough clout in any of those organizations who might have put their foot down and told the rest that this new reinterpretation of Lulu simply isn’t a work that is good enough to be worth staging.

    The new orchestration was for a wind-dominated ensemble which also included synthesizer and electric guitar. To these were added various recordings that were woven into the sound-scape, particularly those of spoken texts relating to the Civil Rights movement and recordings that have been made of a Wonder Morton theatre organ in New Jersey. The passages for organ include those which Berg originally specified should be played by jazz ensemble. Yes, that’s right, the opera has been rescored for what is basically a jazz ensemble except for the passages which were scored for jazz ensemble, which are now given over to theatre organ. Heaven knows why. The orchestration itself is muddy. One can hear lines emerging from the mix that are recognisably those of Alban Berg however a lot of work has gone into making them hard to pick out. The weakest parts musically came at the end of the piece – music which we must presume was all Ms Neuwirth’s own.

    The action begins though with Lulu, played by American singer Angel Blue, standing on a pouf, centre stage. She is only partly visible, having a loose curtain of shiny strips behind her separating her from the band at the back of the stage and a similar curtain separating her from the audience. Both of these curtains were then subject to drab video projection courtesy of Finn Ross who has done far more exciting work elsewhere. The curtains and the video were to come and go without obvious reason throughout the evening. For an Edinburgh International Festival audience still reeling from the video overkill that was Gary Hall’s Fideliojust a fortnight ago, it was a case of déjà vu. Why does it ever seem like a good idea to put an opera singer behind a curtain?

     

    However, the wonderful thing was that Ms Blue is a superb singer. Not only was her voice excellent throughout but it was matched by the rest of the cast. Though the production had its obvious problems there were none in the singing department and it was a pleasure to hear such a fantastic ensemble of voices. The lead role asks a lot from any singer; the score is tricky and a vast vocal range is expected but Angel Blue was flawless. Her upper vocal work had a particularly glitzy shine and there was a freshness to her singing which lasted through the whole evening. (100 minutes straight through – no time off for good behaviour either for cast or audience).

    Lulu goes through a number of lovers and the production is little more than a parade of her affections. First up was Paul Curievici as the Photographer with whom Lulu is enamoured. (He reappeared at the end as her final Young Man). His singing too seemed effortless – a fine tenor with crystal-clear diction. Then we met Donald Maxwell as Dr Bloom, Lulu’s patron and his son Jimmy sung by Jonathan Stoughton. Again, both had strong voices – Maxwell bringing a fabulous rich resonance to proceedings and Stoughton a convincing Southern American accent, the only real clue that we were in the American South.

    Composer Olga Neuwirth seems to have been responsible for this Southern setting rather than director John Fulljames. However, he must bear some responsibility for the clunky scene changes and confused narrative. None of this was helped by the recorded excerpts from Martin Luther King and fragments of poetry from June Jordan. The trouble here is that Lulu is, so we are led to understand, entirely untroubled by care for anyone other than herself. She isn’t part of any feminist struggle, black civil rights struggle or indeed any kind of struggle. Each snippet of speech was a reminder that the opera was floating along without paying any heed whatsoever to the context in which the characters had been thrust and to which they seemed entirely oblivious.

    Lulu may be a bit of a handful but she is no freedom fighter. Both composer and director seemed to lack any sympathy for any of the characters that they had conjured up. There was one line about this black Lulu ending up singing songs for an all-white audience which might have taken us somewhere in terms of social comment but which was instead simply left dangling around without purpose. (Wouldn’t it be good though if Scottish Opera were to start to think about the almost monochrome ethnic composition of its own audience?). The use of Martin Luther King gobbets to change scenes in an opera about a sleazy, murderous hussy in the week that marked the fiftieth year of Dr King’s great “I have a dream speech seemed frankly rather tawdry.

    Meanwhile, Lulu was working her way through her lovers. An Athlete appears for her to dally with. Again, Simon Wilding’s voice was more than adequate but apart from wandering on in American football kit, complete with helmet, he didn’t have much to do. (Do All-American boys really wear football helmets when they go a-whoring? It does seem unlikely). Similarly,Jacqui Dankworth seemed unable to go anywhere without clutching a microphone in her hand to establish her credentials as blues singer Eleanor. Both these characters were little more than singing cartoons. Ms Dankworth though had the great distinction of bringing a gorgeous bluesy voice into the aural mix. She alone amongst what was going on did convincingly take us into the jazz era, even if it was far from clear why we were there. Paul Reeves was nipping on and off stage in three smaller parts and Robert Winslade Andersonsang Clarence, who seemed to be being used as some kind of narrator.

    Unfortunately it was not always clear what was going on with this production. At one point there was quite a long near-blackout where the only thing that could be seen on the stage was the cast skulking around in the wings to the sound of a recording of Alban Berg’s music re-orchestrated for theatre organ.  Apparently, true to Berg’s original intention, a film sequence was due to be shown at this point which failed to trigger due to a technical problem.  Perhaps this film would have helped made sense of the rest of the production, though that does seem unlikely.

    Ultimately the trouble with this production is not its atonality but its banality. There’s no excuse for taking a femme fatale and making of her something so humdrum. There are so many lovers and so many deaths that one should surely feel something about Lulu, but in the end there is nothing much there to care about. Full marks to the cast who put their all into everything. It was, alas, never going to redeem a show which should never have got anywhere near an Edinburgh International Festival stage and which now moves to the Young Vic in London. The piece ends with Lulu staggering out from behind one of those curtains clutching at a wound that is ultimately going to kill her. It isn’t at all clear who struck the mortal blow – my money is on an opera lover.

25 responses to “Same-Sex Marriage Consultation Responses”

  1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    I was so proud to be a member of St Mary’s when I read this, especially as I knew that for some vestry members it was very contentious issue. It is so good we can have strong views and hold together despite them. It is also good to know that we are unafraid to actually say something – something real.

  2. Lallands Peat Worrier Avatar

    Your last point on the situation vis-a-vis transgendered people is well made, though would require the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 to be revisited and amended, since it is that (which is, admittedly, propped up by the current definition of marriage) which requires the dissolution of marriages and civil partnerships where one partner’s gender is legally changed. That being the case, we can’t eliminate the potential injustice to transgendered people you refer too without updating the legislation on civil partnerships alongside changes to marriage. I enlarged somewhat on that point here:

    http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-defence-of-degendering-civil.html

  3. Duncan Hannah Avatar
    Duncan Hannah

    It is heart-warming to read this. It is the compassionate side to Christianity that can be seen too infrequently. It does make me proud, to be even vaguely associated with the Episcopal church, reading something so positive regarding same sex marriage. It speaks volumes for St. Mary’s that the vestry as a whole produced this response.

  4. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    I echo Rosemary’s comment. It’s a good day for St Mary’s.

  5. william Avatar
    william

    It is understandable that ‘pride/heart warming’ feelings have taken over in St Mary’s this week among those who genuinely believe that they are advancing equality etc and so offering more fulfilling days for those who engage in homosexual activities.
    The silence of another perspective which lies behind Rosemary’s statement [for a spectrum on this issue exists in every christian church, albeit not so wide as in society in general] “for some vestry members it was very contentious issue” suggests that it doesn’t seem to be what one does in St Mary’s,namely, to express openly[at least in this blog], any serious concerns about the trajectory being pursued. Or any concern that the approach being followed may be incurring God’s displeasure, and may be leading many well meaning members to find themselves under God’s judgement.
    Surely in any christian church one cannot just assume or have a settled conviction that such a God is not the God with whom we have to do. If that is the only view that is espoused at St Mary’s then again is that because the opprobrium which would follow [as this comment will produce] is too powerful to withstand.
    As in CoS I recognise that the Episcopal hierarchy are representing the broader view, and St Mary’s own statement recognises another understanding – but this blog is not yet exhibiting that balance, hence my encouragements to another outlook to make known its thinking to the world.
    Let me add, however, that the aim of such an encouragement is not simply to expose diversity, rather it is to encourage genuine biblical dialogue, so that the christian church may exhibit to the world the mind of its King and Head, the Lord Jesus Christ.
    The apostle Paul, quoting earlier prophets in Israel, had to say of those who were known in the ancient world as God’s people that the name of God was being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of their hypocritical behaviour.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      William – can I suggest that you simply read this blog post a little more carefully. You seem to be missing the point of what the Vestry has said.

    2. Ryan Avatar
      Ryan

      Do only Christians get married William? Of course not. Do only anti-gay Christians have an interest in getting married? Again, of course not. I’d imagine also that St.Mary’s vision statement shares some of your theological language and is considerably grander (in the best sense) and less dehumanising than ” offering more fulfilling days for those who engage in homosexual activities.” (which frankly sounds more suitable for a 70s-based STD clinic) . Your attempted contrast between the “biblical” view and the mere “broader” (and presumably broad for broad’s sake?) alternative understanding of relevant opinion is absurd.

    3. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      You know, William, Kelvin is being just too nice. (Words he never thought he would see me write, those). The whole point is that the Vestry has recorded that there was more than one opinion among it members, and recorded both or all sides, and yet put forward the majority view. The point is that mature people can disagree, and still respect each other, still further the views which they do not share.

      Gay people marry for the same reasons that straight people do – they love each other. Ad yes, you are right – it is more fulfilling to live with somebody you love rather than to meet them for brief, clandestine moments. I wish I could be sure you will be able to understand why – the reason is that it is hard to live with somebody, and to keep putting their needs and interests first. It is a whole heap easier to live alone, and have cornflakes for tea if that is what you want, and not have anybody else to consider, but just casual sex if you fancy it. Only, that way one tends not to grow up very much. Go figure. And go spot the links between paragraphs one and two of this little post.

  6. william Avatar
    william

    Rosemary, Kelvin is always nice, and even when we don’t agree, not only can we respect one another but love one another enough so that we would want to take each other’s thinking forward together as we seek to approximate to the mind of Christ. Didn’t Paul set that paradigm before us in his epistle to the Romans?
    That’s the nature, indeed the purpose of us together forming the body which is the church of Jesus Christ – a living organism united by the same Holy Spirit.
    “Gay people marry for the same reasons that straight people do ”
    There’s a statement which needs not only explication of at least four of its terms, but more particularly exploration of its intent – and that’s the matter that was not being explored in this current blog theme of ‘heart warming’ contentment.
    I am not calling for people to be direspectful of those with whom they ‘disagree’, or of the majority perception in St Mary’s of ‘same sex relationships’, but for robust biblical dialogue – but nobody seems to feel free, in the present regime there, to identify with any other perspective than the ‘majority’ one espoused in St Mary’s Response.
    Maybe it’s because Kelvin is too nice!

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I think you will find William that quite a lot of people are attracted to St Mary’s because they find it to be a church where the kind of pseudo-biblical judgementalism that you advocate is almost entirely absent, even when we are discussing things where we have clear differences of view. It just isn’t how people behave here. I’m guessing that folk here would generally find that positive rather than negative. There are plenty of churches where people behave in the kind of manner that you seem to want to impose from afar on St Mary’s. The truth is, people here just don’t behave like that.

      That’s what the deal is, you see. That’s one of the reasons people turn up.

      That’s why we are growing too.

      Though I fit into that ethos rather well, for once in my life I can say with all honesty: “It isn’t all about me.”

      It is who we are.

    2. Beth Avatar

      This is part of what I wrote to one member of the Vestry prior to that response coming out: “I think that part of what makes us an inclusive church and something that we as a church do tend to be quite good at, not just on this topic but on most topics, is that we don’t always agree with each other and that we do always make room for one another’s opinions.”

      William, as you seem to be reading only what you want to read, let me spell this out:

      The Vestry response to the question on same sex marriage contains an introductory paragraph explaining that there are differing views on this within St Mary’s. It then spends 77 words explaining the views of those in favour of same-sex marriage, and 101 words explaining the views of those who are not in favour of same-sex marriage.

      I do not understand how you can possibly read that in such a way as to think that only one view is expressed in the response or interpret it to mean that nobody within St Mary’s feels free to express differing opinions.

      1. william Avatar
        william

        Beth, I never had any doubt about the Vestry consultations, as Rosemary indicated – nor did I fail to recognise the differing views incorporated within St Mary’s Response –
        [ my blog 8 Dec “St Mary’s own statement recognises another understanding “].
        I was responding to this blog theme of “heart warming/ pride” which initially and is right up to your comment not exploring the view held by the majority in the christian church – even the Scottish Episcopal Church – that the bible may not sustain a ‘revisionist trajectory’, to use Church of Scotland language.

      2. Ryan Avatar
        Ryan

        William:

        That would be the same Scottish Episcopal Church that, back in 2005, said it had no problem with gay people (and no, not only the celibate kind) being clergy? And that in all of Glasgow has precisely one church that beats the anti-gay drum in the manner you’d deem biblical? And of course, one hopes that you are busy informing said anti-gay churches that really ought to listen to the voices of gay people in the interests of “balance”.

        1. kelvin Avatar

          Ryan, where exactly does one get an anti-gay drum? Do they come from anti-gay drum shops?

      3. Beth Avatar

        William, you are contradicting yourself.

        You did allude to the fact that the St Mary’s response recognises a ‘different understanding’, but the way you have written that sentence suggests (to me) that you’re saying that the St Mary’s response is different to that of the SEC hierarchy. You have elsewhere in this thread said that “nobody seems to feel free under the present regime [at St Mary’s] to identify with any perspective other than the ‘majority’ one espoused in the Vestry response”, that “some views are not expressed too openly at St Mary’s”, and that “it doesn’t seem to be what one does in St Mary’s, namely, to express openly any serious concerns about the trajectory being pursued”. The point that I am trying to make is that, contrary to what you have said here, various members of the congregation identify with perspectives that disagree with the Scottish Government proposals, they have expressed these views openly, and their opinions have been incorporated into the Vestry response.

        Perhaps part of the issue is that you seem to be having trouble differentating between this blog and St Mary’s and therefore trouble understanding that there is a difference (an enormous chasm of a difference, in fact) between the expression of one’s views on a personal blog and the dictatorial imposition of those views on one’s cathedral.

  7. william Avatar
    william

    Kelvin, I think you’ve just exposed why some views are not expresed too openly at St Mary’s – the ethos implies that such thinking is “pseudo-biblical judgementalism”
    And even the unwritten assumption “That’s what the deal is, you see”
    I am not trying to ‘impose’ anything in St Mary’s from afar, but it would seem you certainly are.
    The fact that numbers are growing – I wonder why you chose to enter that fact? – as you well know, proves nothing, albeit I’m encouraged to hear that any church has an increasing attendance these days.
    Every blessing.

    1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      What you need to do william is to come and worship at St Mary’s – where you will find a warm welcome and an un-cowed congregation loudly expressing all of its views very openly. I don’t think imposing views is something Kelvin is much tempted to – but if he was I would advise him to find another congregation on which to do it. However, you will also find a lot of gay people. People know we have gay as well as straight clergy, and that means gay people know they will be welcomed there and not looked-down-on. Since that assurance is a moderately uncommon thing, we attract gay Christians. And it is, by and large, a very liberally-minded congregation. It means that somebody like me can worship there and know that I am not going to be harangued or looked-down-on for my views either, or find I am alone in openly expressing my views, which is exhausting. And not just views on equal marriage. I was made to feel criminal in another church for disliking one particular theory of atonement, and by the priest too. This freedom to think and argue is the very thing that makes it a congregation likely to hold views closer to Kelvin’s than to yours.

      1. kelvin Avatar

        Ooh, that reminds me, Fr Vice Provost did a workshop on atonement theories the other night that sounded really good. I think he described it to me as an Atonement Supermarket – several different theories all laid out in the room and people invited to position themselves in the room according to what theory or theories attracted them most. Excellent idea – worth repeating, I think.

      2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
        Rosemary Hannah

        It seems I can’t reply to your reply to my reply. OOOh – no wonder I love St M’s – you will be intuitively there before me when I say I am not great on cosmic child abuse.

    2. kelvin Avatar

      Threaded comments only go two deep I think.

      I’m not surprised by you saying that at all. I’m very much attracted by a palatte of atonement theories though.

  8. Ryan Avatar
    Ryan

    I gather that they’re impossible to get a proper rhythm from, thereby frustrating the gays and their inate fabulous dancing skills 😉

  9. Pam R Avatar
    Pam R

    I was at the Atonement Supermarket on Wednesday night and it was fabulous. Definitely worth repeating.

    1. PamB Avatar
      PamB

      Was there any dancing?

  10. […] arguments against changing the law. She finds support from What’s in Kelvin’s Head? who reports that his congregation have sent in a response that’s in favour of the […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Helen Percy

    We might sing a little hallelujah today for the tenacity and courage of Helen Percy. Her discrimination case with the Church of Scotland was settled out of court. The details of Helen’s case are not really the point any more – the principle that she established was that a minister could approach an employment tribunal…

  • During the Magnificat

    Just in case anyone thought that I was inventing liturgy on the hoof for the Festival Evensong on Sunday night, here is a lovely clip showing other people doing much the same at the altar during the Mag. Music is rather good too. I’ve a wee suspicion that all that I would share with these…

  • Festivals

    I rather like the cultural elision that is unfolding this year, as Diwali give way to Eid which in turn gives way to Halloween/All Saints/All Souls and then Guy Fawkes. (All festivals that are religious in one way or another). Basically it means lots of fireworks. However, Miss T is not so happy at the…